It shouldn't be there, but it is. Deep in the central Amazonian rainforest lies a rich, black soil known locally as terra preta do Indio (Indian dark earth) that farmers have worked for years with minimal fertilization. A Brazilian-American archeological team believed terra preta, which may cover 10 percent of Amazonia, was the product of intense habitation by Amerindian populations who flourished in the area for two millennia, but they recently unearthed evidence that societies lived and farmed in the area up to 11,000 years ago.

As reported in the August 9 issue of the journal Science, such long-lasting fertility is an anomaly in the tropics, where punishing conditions make the land highly acidic, low in organic matter and essential nutrients, and nearly incapable of sustaining life.

In 1994, James Petersen, associate professor and chair of anthropology at the University of Vermont, and Michael Heckenberger, now at the University of Florida, investigated their first terra preta deposit on a riverbank near Açutuba. The three-kilometer site was thick with broken pieces of ceramic, relics of a large, ancient society. To date, they and fellow researchers have excavated four sites and explored 30 others near the junction of the Amazon and Rio Negro.

What researchers find most remarkable is that instead of destroying the soil, the indigenous inhabitants improved it - something ecologists don't know how to do today. Although the project is in its early stages, modern scientists hope to learn the principles behind terra preta. The ability to reproduce the super-fertile soil could have broad impact, making it possible to sustain intensive agriculture in the Amazon and other hot regions.

Good Post! If you put this with the undersea finds near Cuba, India, and the Black sea, there is a lot we just do not know yet about the early story of civilization. I suspect there is more to be found under the jungle in South America and Asia.

Right. Civilization was discovered straight out of the blue in Ur with nothing coming before. Hammaurabi invented law with no precedent. Nobody thought of agriculture until beer and bread were found to be good things.

What did they grow down there in the present rainforest wasteland? Habaneros, corn, tobacco, and potatoes would be my guess, none of which were avalaible in Asia or Europe or Africa until the time of Phoenicians.

I know this is "flipant," but "Pay Dirt" is what Mrs. Wasp buys at the local nursery that is loaded with chicken excrement and bat guano(sp?). I think they collect it down in Sacramento at the Crapitol!!! (how's that for a dig?)

Time is contemporaneous with Kennewick Man (11,300 years ago). More evidence that Europeans were the first to settle the Americas (that frantic shoveling noise you hear is "Native Americans" trying to rebury the evidence before it can be examined)...

I wouldn't be so flippant sir. There is a growing body of concurrent evidence on this one. More important, it is evidence derived from totally unrelated disciplines: soil science, traditional archaeology, genetic anthropology, lexicography, botany, epidemiology...

With all these distinct disciplines pointing in the same direction, why is the resistance so shrill? (There is a reason.)

Luzia, died at the age of 24, 11,500 years ago in Brazil. (she is the oldest dated skeleton ever found in the Americas)

Luzia, is closer in time and geography to the area mentioned in this article than any other to date. (There is a skeleton found on an island off the coast of California that some believe will be older than Luzia, but not yet.)

The Monte Verde site, 35,000-50,000yo will (probably) cause havoc (eventually) with all that we know about this area.

What researchers find most remarkable is that instead of destroying the soil, the indigenous inhabitants improved it - something ecologists don't know how to do today

But modern farmers, soils scientists, and ag engineers do. It's just that not all farmers practice the proper methods as they sometimes don't pay as much in the short term.

What did they grow down there in the present rainforest wasteland? Habaneros, corn, tobacco, and potatoes would be my guess, none of which were avalaible in Asia or Europe or Africa until the time of Phoenicians.

Have to have some beans or other crop that hosts nitrogen fixing bacteria, maybe peanuts? I'm not real up on crop rotation practices, but they often involve at least 3 different crops and a fallow period. My father in law's farm does corn, soy beans, alfalfa and the fallow year. Course it helps that his father was the first in the county to do contour plowing and one of the first, if not the first, to put in terraces. His land didn't blow away in the '30s like so many others' did. He, my wife's grandpa, learned all that at Ag College, where he got a 4 year degree in something like 1918. He was a real rarity in those days, a farmer with a 4 year college degree. He taught at an Ag school, 1 and 2 year programs plus short courses, before returning to take over the farm from his father.

Just as farming was practiced briefly in Egypt some 11000 years ago to feed those building the Sphinx and the Great Pyramid, just so it was practiced briefly by the Atlantean exiles when they reached the continents of refuge.

It then seems to have died out until its reintroduction in Sumer some 6000 yrs BP.

It seems as though modern day farmers would be quite interested to know how they sustained the soil without fertilizers.It would also be interesting to know the cause of death(at age 24).Obviously life expectancy was much shorter at that point in time.

It seems as though modern day farmers would be quite interested to know how they sustained the soil without fertilizers.It would also be interesting to know the cause of death(at age 24).

Its not hard to understand if you consider hand tilled rows and plenty of rain. Not near the production per acre as we have today. Especially after 11,000 years of all sorts of decayed vegetation and animals have enriched it.

Agriculture in the Old World is a relatively recent invention, sometime around 8000 B.C. There is very little evidence of human habitation of the Americas before 12,000 B.C. The Ice Sheets retreated enough to allow crossing of the Bering Straits only shortly before that. Megafauna still existed around 11,000 B.C.

While all of these assertions are constantly being revised I believe they are still considered valid. If you think otherwise, point me to the evidence.

It increasingly depends upon whom you consult whether they are "considered valid." The archaeological community is fracturing over these recent findings, led by the lexicographers. (Sea levels fuctuate much more rapidly than was once thought. I am in the process of obtaining a 1995 paper from the Journal Geology to that effect.)

I tend to agree with the newer models that indicate that the Western Hemisphere has been a very interesting place for a very long time. Try poking around Ernest's Gods, Graves, & Glyphs list. Some of it is a stretch, a lot of it is serious. It is one of the better easily accessible collections and it's free. If you want more, ask blam.

Interesting. Fascinating that academia thinks that North and South American Indians lived in the woods for all their history when in fact they were altering nature to a high degree up until the European plagues wiped 90% of them out after 1492. Only then did they live as we saw them when we began to immigrate over here.

Tropical soil burns up organic matter quickly. The re-introduction of organic composting came from the need to make the soil last longer in India. The Indore method was to combine soil with manure and leafy matter to make compost. Of course composted manure was used in Europe. They used to say in rural Germany, "Marry a girl with a big pile of manure." The manure was a sign of animal ownership and hence prosperity.

"Rainforest soil is considerably different from, say, American tallgrass prairie soil. I understand that it is quite difficult to sustain crops on former rainforest lands."

This is true. The nutrients are concentrated in the absolute top layer of soil, that is why so many trees there have large expanded bases. The trees do not have deep roots (no nutrients there) so the trees have large bases for stability and also to spread out as far as possible to gather the nutrients in the thin top layer.

None the less, when Coca Cola bought out Minute Maid, they also bought 12% of the land area of Belize to grow citrus. (The Florida crops are subject to unexpected freezes, that's no way to run a business.)

I understand- and it was something of a surprise to learn so- that ground level diversity was quite low in rainforests. One would probably find more species of plants in a Southern decidous forest than a typical lowland rainforest- and the South's Coastal Plain savannahs and bogs have higher diversity than rain forests per square foot (and are mroe asthetically pleasing to my biased eye). I would imagine though that some types of rainforests have richer soil than others-and soils would vary in places. Of course, I have not had the privilege to travel in the lands where such forests grow- would like to sometime. Money and time...

"One would probably find more species of plants in a Southern decidous forest than a typical lowland rainforest- and the South's Coastal Plain savannahs and bogs have higher diversity than rain forests per square foot (and are mroe asthetically pleasing to my biased eye)."

I agree. Read the 1491 article in post #37.

In fact, I explained to my son that I have always been drawn back to the woodlands in this area, I attribute this to having been imprinted in my youth. I had just as soon wander through these woods around here than go to a good movie.

"If the Indians had ships, they would have been just as developed as us, it appears."

They were forced to be excellent farmers because they did not have the large land mammals like Africa, Europe and Asia to eat. Greater than 50% of today's worldwide food crops were developed in the Americas by these people.

The first Spanish explorers who sailed down the Amazon from Peru reported that the riverbanks were densely populated and under intense cultivation. I suspect European diseases caused the collapse of these societies and the floodings of the River washed away the structures.

"The first Spanish explorers who sailed down the Amazon from Peru reported that the riverbanks were densely populated and under intense cultivation. I suspect European diseases caused the collapse of these societies and the floodings of the River washed away the structures."

Yup. The Amazon River was named after the female warriors (Amazons) seen on the banks of the river.

Furthermore, hundreds of miles of canals and raised fields are still visible from the air. It is estimated that when the 'modern' Europeans discovered South America, there were more humans living in SA than all of Europe. Teotechuan(sp) was larger than London.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.